Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 7662

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7662

64 Cores128 Thrd225 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

72,298

+188.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 7900

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.4% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $5,954 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 986.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 72,298).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7662, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7662

2020

Why buy it

✅+188.9% higher PassMark.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($6,150 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 7662

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.4% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $5,954 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
✅Delivers 986.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+188.9% higher PassMark.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 72,298).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7662, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($6,150 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than EPYC 7662?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7662 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7662 is the better fit. You are getting 188.9% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $5,954 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $6,150 MSRP, and it gives you a 4.4% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7662 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 188.9% better PassMark. It is also 986.3% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-13400F Benchmark Check

EPYC 7662 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
1080p
low	171 FPS	192 FPS
medium	158 FPS	156 FPS
high	132 FPS	125 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	156 FPS
medium	123 FPS	122 FPS
high	99 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	73 FPS
medium	74 FPS	60 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7662

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
1080p
low	545 FPS	249 FPS
medium	464 FPS	220 FPS
high	389 FPS	182 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	145 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	204 FPS
medium	403 FPS	185 FPS
high	345 FPS	158 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	122 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	127 FPS
medium	247 FPS	117 FPS
high	231 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	83 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7662

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
1080p
low	530 FPS	722 FPS
medium	449 FPS	590 FPS
high	415 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	446 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	587 FPS
medium	422 FPS	486 FPS
high	382 FPS	423 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	368 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	426 FPS
medium	331 FPS	330 FPS
high	296 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	227 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7662

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
1080p
low	626 FPS	935 FPS
medium	626 FPS	846 FPS
high	626 FPS	724 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	721 FPS
medium	626 FPS	628 FPS
high	598 FPS	535 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	514 FPS
medium	492 FPS	458 FPS
high	439 FPS	400 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	348 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7662

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 7662

Core i5-13400F

The Core i5-13400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 25,029 points. Launch price was $196.

EPYC 7662

The EPYC 7662 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2020-02-19. It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB. L2 cache: 32 MB. Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 72,298 points. Launch price was $6,700.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7662 offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 7662 has 54 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7662 — a 32.9% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7662 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 7662's 72,298 — a 97.1% lead for the EPYC 7662. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB on the EPYC 7662.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	64 / 128+540%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+39%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+25%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	256 MB+1180%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	32 MB+2460%
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029	72,298+189%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7662 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7662 — the EPYC 7662 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7662 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7662). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7662) — the EPYC 7662 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP3 (EPYC 7662).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
Socket	LGA1700	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 7662 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7662
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 7662 debuted at $6150. On MSRP ($196 vs $6150), the Core i5-13400F is $5954 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 11.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 7662 — making the Core i5-13400F the 166.3% better value option.